Saturday, February 4, 2012

Rank religious practices lower than polity

Sri Aurobindo and The Mother have unambiguously
stated that their ideals, teachings and the institutions that they have founded
do not belong to any religion or religious body, in any name or form. […] For
whatever is it’s worth – especially in the realm of spirituality – there is
even a judgment of the Supreme Court of India, S.P. Mittal Etc. Etc. vs.
Union of India, 1982 (http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx), that has
established that Sri Aurobindo’s and The Mother’s ideals, teachings and
the institutions that they have founded do not belong to any religion or
religious institution.

There are numerous other instances where Sri
Aurobindo and The Mother have unambiguously stated that their ideals, teachings
and the institutions that they have founded have nothing to do with religion.
There is even nothing in their teachings and works to suggest that they wanted
their followers to create a new religion or establish religious institutions.

Nevertheless, Myths and Falsehoods that suggest
that Sri Aurobindo’s and The Mother’s ideals, teachings and the
institutions that they have founded belong to some form of a new
“Aurobindonian religion” continue to be spun, encouraged and propagated by some
individuals or by groups that have similar interests. Persistent attempts to
reduce Sri Aurobindo’s and The Mother’s work – which they clearly enunciated
belongs to the vast, non-religious realm of Spirituality – to a Religion, can
be witnessed. This can be seen particularly in the dogmatic attitudes that are
encouraged by those who wish to establish such a creed. For instance, the logic
and culture of “hurt (religious) sentiments” and the polarization and
exploitation of opinions based on such hurt feelings is gradually but
systematically being cultivated in the Aurobindonian collective by those seeking
to establish such a doctrine… and all that goes with it.

Just because some or even several followers of Sri
Aurobindo and The Mother chose to follow their Masters by treading a path that
is based on a religious sentiment, attitude or approach, does not mean that the
Myth and Falsehood of such a new religion shall someday become a reality. For
whilst the vastness of Sri Aurobindo’s and The Mother’s ideals, teachings
and their institutions can and do accommodate such religious attitudes and
sentiments – without any intolerance whatsoever – so far they have however
proved to be just too vast to get reduced to the limited confines of Religion
in whichever name or form.

The reasons for which the creation
of these Myths and Falsehoods is being attempted is left to the
understanding of the reader. But it can be clearly affirmed that an
“Aurobindonian religion” or a religion that is based on Sri Aurobindo’s and The
Mother’s teachings is a Myth which is nothing short of a Falsehood.

However, we would like to add that we are of the
opinion that if some of Sri Aurobindo's and The Mother's followers wish to
establish a new religion in the name, ideals or teachings of their Masters,
they are of course free and welcome to attempt it. It is entirely up to them to
try and reconcile their preferred personal beliefs and intentions while going
against the directions and guidance of their Masters. If this is the path that
these followers choose, so be it.

But there is absolutely no reason or justification
for the rest of the followers to get misled by a few individuals who wish to
further their personal views and preferences by creating the Myths of a
non-existent religious movement. Editors, Auro Truths. [February
3, 2012 at 9:27 am Posted by Tusar
N. Mohapatra at 12:23 PM]

Lastly, we do not claim to posses the Truth, but
we believe that we can help remove those obstacles that come in the way of
or obfuscate Truth - especially those obstacles that are in the form
of deliberate misrepresentation and distortion of facts or the creation of myths
–by providing more reliable, accurate and complete information. Administrators.

With the Indian case mainly in mind, Bilgrami
resists Taylor’s
argument that we should thus diminish state neutrality. He argues, however, for
a negative concept of state neutrality. For him, the state needs to rank
religious practices lower than the ideals and practices of its own “polity,” as
he puts it, in cases where they are inconsistent with (i.e. negate) the state’s
political ideals. These first-level ideals may vary from state to state, but it
is clear that Bilgrami thinks of them in Rawlsian terms both as rights—to
life, freedom of speech, and equal treatment under the law and so on, and as goods—like
welfare provision, distributive justice, and cheap universal education.

I am in general agreement with Bilgrami’s argument… Taylor wishes to reduce
democratic state sovereignty, Bilgrami to maintain it. As I said, I think he is
right about that, especially in cases like India. But given the internal
contradictions of democratic state capitalism, its failures to meet its own
norms and purposes (e.g. equality of opportunity and participation, liberty,
widely-based prosperity), I find myself also willing to imagine situations in
which the state foregoes its monopolization of sovereignty, and accedes some of
its power to associations. As far as I am concerned, these cannot, however, be
religious associations, since the argument against religion’s validity claims
has indeed been won.

From this perspective, the real challenge becomes:
how to imagine and invent strong non-religious associations with substantive
values and satisfying practices of life? Associations capable of taking back
some state sovereignty, admittedly (as Bilgrami urges) in ways that don’t
threaten state neutrality? One theoretical possibility would be for atheists
(associating in the interests of truth) to take over the Churches’ rich and
solid institutions from the inside, which might indeed herald a return to older
conditions and styles of at least Christian ecclesiastical practice, in which
belief was not a prerequisite for episcopal ordination. But that is just a
politics of hope and imagination.